I have long taken an interest in the creation vs evolution debate. It’s probably a consequence of my father’s scientific interests, and my engineering mind and career. I take the scientific method seriously, and apply it (in a very practical way) on a daily basis in my embedded software engineering work. And inevitably, I also take an interest in the young vs old earth debate. But I often come across Christians who look at me, puzzled: “What’s the big deal with young vs old earth? It doesn’t really matter does it? Focus on more important things.”
I should explain: my church has always gone for the “gap theory”. About 12 years ago, a certain family introduced me to young earth creationism (YEC) stuff. I read it, and the desire for a “literal” reading of the Bible appealed to me. I ran with the idea, for about 10 years. But I always wanted to keep my mind open to the possibility I could be wrong.
In some ways, YEC seemed to have many scientific merits, when reading their literature. But I was bothered that something didn’t quite seem right. I’m an engineer, so my knowledge of matters of biology, geology and palaeontology are quite limited. But I think I know logic and illogic when I see it. Actually, I’ve seen a lot of illogic on both sides of the argument, unfortunately. I think it’s really quite tough to have an absolutely flawless scientific/logical argument. Us humans can let a lot slip without realising it, due to our bias and limited mental capacity.
Then about 2 years ago, I had a chance to confront someone in my church with the hard questions. I was given the low-down on how the “literal” reading of a young earth in the Bible has certain problems, and how a “literal” reading of an old earth has certain merits. I mulled it over for a year or two. That opened up new possibilities theologically. After some thought I’d have to say now that the old earth reading of the Bible seems more internally consistent. (see also “Young Earth Creationism and the Plain Meaning of the Bible”)
The young-earth creationists put a great deal of stock in taking Genesis for its word, and I respect that. It is necessary to be able to take the whole Bible seriously as an inspired work of God, in order to have a strong and enduring Christian faith. After all, for God to be God, He must know what He’s talking about on scientific matters as well as moral ones. But if the Bible is just the creation of men, then in the 21st century we may as well ignore it as being entirely outdated.
Meanwhile, I’m all too aware of what the general scientific opinion is of YEC. Biased as humans may be, there is certain evidence that really does seem to convincingly support an ancient earth.
So does “young vs old earth” really matter? Indeed it does, for any Christian who cares about the scientific method. For those many people who don’t care about the scientific method, and who say, “does it really matter?”, well, I’ll forgive them. I’m not so clued-up about Rembrandt or Finnish cuisine either.
Christians should reject the “non-overlapping magisteria” idea, because science and religion do inevitably overlap. Christianity has at its heart the belief that human life is created for a purpose that goes far beyond life on this earth as we know it. Evolution, though it may be denied, has at its heart a “God is not required” axiom which directly contradicts Christianity. Prominent atheistic evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have preached an anti-God message for some time now, demonstrating a desire for science to make a commentary on religious matters. Christianity likewise must make a commentary on scientific matters. Christianity is founded on the Bible which says God created everything, which must include the laws of physics and science itself (with miracles being, by definition, an unusual exception to the laws of science).
Therefore, Christianity must preach that Christianity is compatible with science. Therefore, Christians who are skilled in scientific pursuits should pursue, as they are able, an understanding of the world that is true to both science and the Bible. Both must harmonise. We must not be embarrassed about either one or the other.
This is a huge task, and one unlikely to win favours among atheists, even if done perfectly. Yet it should be done with appropriate humility towards both the Bible and the scientific method (both being created by God). To many evolutionists and atheists, young-earth creationism is the definition of creationism, while old-earth creationism is a far lesser-known phenomenon. Could it be that young-earth creationists themselves are inadvertently setting up a straw man for evolutionists to tear down? That would be a great shame in the pursuit of the glory of God.
If Christians do science accurately, with an absolutely truthful conclusion, will atheistic scientists be persuaded by reason? Maybe, but I do think there is one crucial flaw in their thinking which isn’t easily overcome. That is the previously-mentioned axiom and bias: “God is not required”. It is declared on philosophical grounds: that which is supernatural by definition can’t be scientifically tested. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. It is understandable in the most limited scope of scientific pursuit, yet illogical at the same time. The truly open-minded scientist may even test this if they are willing to extend their scientific method to consider Biblical history, archaeology and sociology. Then make a personal commitment to test Biblical moral propositions and Biblical promises from the alleged great God who created all for an exceedingly great purpose.
Comments
Hello Craig,
I want to thank you for commenting at my Fantasy of Evolution blog. ///
Although you say above that there's actually evidence for an old earth, you don't spell it out so I could give you my thoughts on it, and it does seem to me that there is simply no reasonable way to make Genesis accommodate an old earth idea without doing violence to the text. ///
I believe the idea of an old earth also does violence to the GENETICS involved in the difference between the genetic situation if all life started in Eden versus if it evolved from millions of years back. I hope to get into that on my blog eventually.
I'm no scientist and I probably get some things wrong, though I try to stay away from areas I'm unsure about; I simply observe the world through the revelation of the Bible, and with prayer, and I believe God has shown me things secular scientists miss.
Signed, Faith http://evofantasy.blogspot.com/
Thanks for comment, Faith
Thanks for your comment. Good question, and I'd like to give it a good answer. Please give me a few days to think it through and hopefully I'll have something here.
I'm trying to figure this stuff out, but not set in my ways! Always interested to hear a well thought-out discussion. Ideally I'd like to "know the truth, and know I know the truth" but it's a long-running debate with many views so I'll try not to get too self-confident.
Comments on your blog
Hello again Faith. I put my comments on your blog post.
What blog post, Craig?
You mean my own blog? I don't see any new comments there.
I think I meant
I think I meant this comment but it's not that new really and you'd already replied to it. Never mind, I was just slow to mention it here.
Evolution
The examination of life on earth tells a story overwhelmingly supportive of the theory of evolution of species by natural selection. The theory has withstood 150 years of scientific research aimed at proving it wrong. The theory has adapted to fit new evidence. To deny the veracity of the theory can only call into question the denier’s intellectual honesty or cognitive competence. Intellectual honesty is the key to understanding the universe. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and readily apparent. How one reconciles this evidence with one’s religious beliefs is obviously a difficult problem for many and can result in denial of evidence and/or a state of cognitive dissonance. However many people apparently live with this state of mind, unwilling to follow the thought processes to their ultimate conclusions. It is a fact no study of any of the life sciences makes any sense without foundation of the theory of evolution.
Allan
Evolution
For someone wanting to be intellectually honest, surely you have to appreciate the complex issues involved in this topic for individuals and society. Therefore, to use one-liners like "The evidence is overwhelming" and "To deny the veracity of the theory can only call into question the denier’s intellectual honesty or cognitive competence" is unhelpful.
One option for me would be to just trust others' assurances about this overwhelming evidence. But the debate is quite polarised, so who do I trust? I've dug into the details a little, and I'm not convinced that evolutionists have really evenly considered the possibilities with an open mind as scientists should, as I said in Truth Science Wouldn’t Find—Part 1.
I highly doubt that. Historically, scientists who are creationists have made useful contributions to the life sciences. Mendel being a more famous example. Creationists agree with many foundational principles of biology, including genetic variation of populations over time, and natural selection. The thing that's in dispute is whether such mechanisms can take the credit for making life as we know it today from goo millions of years ago.
"For someone wanting to be
"For someone wanting to be intellectually honest, surely you have to appreciate the complex issues involved in this topic for individuals and society. Therefore, to use one-liners like "The evidence is overwhelming" and "To deny the veracity of the theory can only call into question the denier’s intellectual honesty or cognitive competence" is unhelpful."
The evidence is overwhelming. Education is the answer.
“just trust others' assurances about this overwhelming evidence.”
Absolutely not an option that I would recommend. Question everything. But you cannot examine every piece of evidence yourself. You have to trust the conclusions of the peer-respected, educated and intelligent among us.
“But the debate is quite polarised, so who do I trust?
You trust your common sense, albeit with the realization that humans are prone to see patterns where there are none, and import intent where there is none. The debate is polarised. However the evidence is hugely weighted in favour of the side of evolution. The creation side only has ‘faith’.
“I highly doubt that. Historically, scientists who are creationists have made useful contributions to the life sciences. Mendel being a more famous example. Creationists agree with many foundational principles of biology, including genetic variation of populations over time, and natural selection. The thing that's in dispute is whether such mechanisms can take the credit for making life as we know it today from goo millions of years ago.”
It is good that you doubt it. Now go and investigate it. Having a strong background in biological science I stand by my assertion. Nothing....absolutely nothing makes sense without evolution. I have said before, christians can do good science. This doesn’t provide any support for the truth of their religious beliefs. I don’t think there is any doubt amongst the knowledgeable that the mechanism can take credit for making life as we know it. We may not yet know all the details but there is no room for god in these gaps.
Creationism
“.......the old earth reading of the Bible seems more internally consistent.”
How so? Is the bible the inerrant word of god or not? If it is then isn’t a literal construal the more appropriate. Would a god responsible for the creation of the universe and all life within, characterized by awesome precision and complexity, write a book of such ambiguity and open to personal interpretation? Why all the mystery?
“The young-earth creationists put a great deal of stock in taking Genesis for its word, and I respect that.”
If I said I believed in fairies or that the world was flat would you respect that? Surely willful ignorance doesn’t deserve respect. I respect their right to believe whatever but I wouldn’t respect their opinion.
“He must know what He’s talking about on scientific matters as well as moral ones.”
So why doesn’t his ‘word” contain one iota of scientific knowledge not known in the bronze age? Indeed, it dictates many harmful practices based on superstition rather than science.”
“But if the Bible is just the creation of men, then in the 21st century we may as well ignore it as being entirely outdated.”
Now you’re on the right track.
“So does “young vs old earth” really matter? Indeed it does, for any Christian who cares about the scientific method. For those many people who don’t care about the scientific method, and who say, “does it really matter?”, well, I’ll forgive them. I’m not so clued-up about Rembrandt or Finnish cuisine either.”
Why limit the relevance to only those christians that care about the scientific method? Surely the truth about the universe matters to everyone whether or not it is of a direct or immediate significance. An instruction manual of life supposedly written by a god surely should be factually correct in its entirety.
“Evolution, though it may be denied, has at its heart a “God is not required” axiom which directly contradicts Christianity.”
This statement is false, probably by innocent mistake rather than malice. The theory of evolution does not speak to the question of god in any way at all. It postulates that speciation of life results from the differential reproductive selective action of environmental forces. It completely explains the marvelous complexity and readily observable commonalities of all life on earth. The question of god’s role is one raised by those who require him to play a part. Simply put, evolution has no anti-god or god-is-not-required axiom. God is simply irrelevant and adds nothing to an understanding of the theory. Would you say that evolution has at its heart the axioms “fairies are not required”, “alien life forms are not required” etc.....
“Prominent atheistic evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have preached an anti-God message for some time now, demonstrating a desire for science to make a commentary on religious matters.”
Richard Dawkins seeks to keep religion out of science. He openly acknowledges his respect for the right of all people to believe what they wish, but not the right to inflict those beliefs on others without there being credible evidence as to veracity of the belief.
“If Christians do science accurately, with an absolutely truthful conclusion, will atheistic scientists be persuaded by reason?”
Absolutely, how can there be any doubt about it. Correct application of the scientific method will result in the best explanation of the evidence. People’s opinions do not determine reality. Reality is. Many christians do very good science. The better of them do not bring god into the laboratory.
“Maybe, but I do think there is one crucial flaw in their thinking which isn’t easily overcome. That is the previously-mentioned axiom and bias: “God is not required”. It is declared on philosophical grounds: that which is supernatural by definition can’t be scientifically tested.” Therefore, God doesn’t exist.”
There is no scientific bias against god. It is true that the question of god’s actual existence has never been found to be relevant but to suggest that there exists a positive bias against god is untrue. Science only considers those factors that are relevant to the question at hand. To dismiss any possible explanation of the evidence would in itself be unscientific. However, science has never required god and by definition god is conveniently beyond scientific investigation, especially when it suits those who propose a role for this supernatural being.
“It is understandable in the most limited scope of scientific pursuit, yet illogical at the same time.”
The stated conclusion as you put it is indeed illogical, and irrational. But you have built a strawman. Rational people cannot assert the non-existence of god with absolute certainty. However, the probability of his existence is infinitesimally small so as to be negligible. His existence is irrelevant and gives no explanatory assistance to the questions science seeks to answer. You accuse the “atheistic scientist” of bias yet I believe you have it backwards. The problem I consistently encounter with my religious friends is that they start with the unquestionable belief that god exists. All evidence is interpreted with reference to the indisputable truth of god’s existence. This is bias, and exists without any credible evidence.
“The truly open-minded scientist may even test this if they are willing to extend their scientific method to consider Biblical history, archaeology and sociology.”
All has been done to death and the biblical account is a fail.
“Then make a personal commitment to test Biblical moral propositions and Biblical promises from the alleged great God who created all for an exceedingly great purpose.”
The bible is a horrific account of a maniacal god with bronze-age tribal morals. Jesus presents himself slightly better but said nothing remarkable and only repeated what had already been said by many previous and contemporary ‘prophets’.
Allan
Hey Allen
Nonsense. Evolution was an idea in the air for quite some time before Darwin supposedly gave it a scientific footing, and it was in the air specifically AS a contradiction to religion, as part of the whole anti-God Enlightenment package. God was under attack in many ways and alternatives to God were very popular; evolution was one of them. Its whole raison d'etre was to contradict the Biblical God.
Also nonsense to claim that it is lack of education that explains adherence to the Biblical account. I was steeped in evolutionistic education myself, read Darwin, enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould and followed a lot of the thinking in various periodicals. Even then, while I was a total atheist (which I was until my mid-forties) I kept having the impression that the evidence for evolution had a tendency to go poof just as you thought you had it pinned down.
The fact is that evolution has no real scientific footing at all. All Darwin did was apply the principles of domestic selection to nature, where we can certainly see it in operation (really, without his help), but as everyone knows, domestic breeding always ends up with a depleted genetic variability, not an increase. That's how you get new "species" -- by eliminating genetic competition so that a specialized variety can be formed, a highly inbred and vulnerable new "species." That's the REAL end point of all evolutionary processes. Even if there were such a thing as useful mutations, they couldn't possibly keep pace with the genetic-reduction influence of selection.
Evolution is a big fat fantasy that is held together strictly by imagination and not a single true testable fact.
Faith
http://evofantasy.blogspot.com/
“Nonsense. Evolution was an
“Nonsense. Evolution was an idea in the air for quite some time before Darwin supposedly gave it a scientific footing, and it was in the air specifically AS a contradiction to religion, as part of the whole anti-God Enlightenment package. God was under attack in many ways and alternatives to God were very popular; evolution was one of them. Its whole raison d'etre was to contradict the Biblical God.”
Your point? (apart from science = bad)
“Also nonsense to claim that it is lack of education that explains adherence to the Biblical account. I was steeped in evolutionistic education myself, read Darwin, enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould and followed a lot of the thinking in various periodicals. Even then, while I was a total atheist (which I was until my mid-forties) I kept having the impression that the evidence for evolution had a tendency to go poof just as you thought you had it pinned down.”
The old..... “I was an atheist”.... see I’m credible! Sorry but no. Your next sentence speaks volumes....
“The fact is that evolution has no real scientific footing at all.”
ROFL......
“All Darwin did was apply the principles of domestic selection to nature, where we can certainly see it in operation (really, without his help), but as everyone knows, domestic breeding always ends up with a depleted genetic variability, not an increase.”
Does it?..... Fail.
“ That's how you get new "species" -- by eliminating genetic competition so that a specialized variety can be formed, a highly inbred and vulnerable new "species." “
Are you sure? Not a genetic mutation in sight? No natural selection?.... Fail.
“That's the REAL end point of all evolutionary processes. Even if there were such a thing as useful mutations, they couldn't possibly keep pace with the genetic-reduction influence of selection. “
A false statement that is followed by a denial of a fact and then superbly followed by an absolute conclusion of utter nonsense.
“Evolution is a big fat fantasy that is held together strictly by imagination and not a single true testable fact.”
And thus your pseudonym is explained – Faith (def: a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, especially when this is not based on reason) – and many people consider this to be a virtue????
Wow, you sure came unglued.
Kind of dissolved into one-word gibbers by the end there.
My point, you ask? I was specifically answering points in your post.
You claimed evolution is not anti-religion, I answered that it is and very pointedly was from the beginning. So drop the stupidity about how it's neutral toward religion.
You claimed anti-evolutionists lack education, I answered that is your own daydream. In fact it's impossible to avoid education in evolution. The fact that I was an atheist OUGHT to give me some credibility in this context but you don't have the intellectual objectivity to recognize it. Can't answer so you ridicule.
Left something out
Missed this: "Not a genetic mutation in sight? No natural selection?...."
You didn't read very well. LOTS of natural selection, tons of it, all leading to the situation of genetic depletion. But you didn't think about it at all, so eager are you to get rid of any ideas but your own.
As for mutations, as I said, even if there is such a thing as USEFUL mutations, and the evidence is not promising, the processes of selection would render them null and void.
Think about it, if you know how.
ad nauseum
“You claimed evolution is not anti-religion, I answered that it is and very pointedly was from the beginning. So drop the stupidity about how it's neutral toward religion. “
Evolution is a scientific theory that doesn’t mention god at all. Even the Pope acknowledges the truth of the theory as do other eminent christian authorities. It is neutral towards religion in the same way that the theory of gravity is neutral towards religion. It simply explains the observable evidence. If you prefer to believe that your invisible friend did it then please show me the evidence. Even if evolution was wrong it still doesn’t mean god did it. Unless you can prove it your assertions are baseless.
“The fact that I was an atheist OUGHT to give me some credibility in this context but you don't have the intellectual objectivity to recognize it.”
No it doesn’t. The fact that I was a christian does not increase my credibility on the topic. Our personal opinions do not determine the truth. The facts speak for themselves. Reality is quite independent of what we believe.
“Can't answer so you ridicule.”
Where is the ridicule? I have merely stated my opinion of your comments. Yes they are ridiculous but I have not ridiculed you. Maybe you take offense to the statement of the definition of ‘faith’. It is your chosen nom de plume.
"Missed this: "Not a genetic mutation in sight? No natural selection?....You didn't read very well. LOTS of natural selection, tons of it, all leading to the situation of genetic depletion. But you didn't think about it at all, so eager are you to get rid of any ideas but your own. As for mutations, as I said, even if there is such a thing as USEFUL mutations, and the evidence is not promising, the processes of selection would render them null and void.”
I may be having trouble understanding your original post. You didn’t mention natural selection. You only mentioned mutation in relation to your doubt about the existence of useful mutations. You appear to equate natural selection to artifical selection. Quite different processes and outcomes.
If the genesis account of creation didn’t make it into the modern version of the bible would you still have the same opinion about evolution?
“Think about it, if you know how.”
Ouch. Very christian.
I reject all modern Bibles, but
Yes, my opinion about evolution would be the same no matter what Genesis says, because I already suspected some flimflam going on before I was a believer. Becoming a believer merely gave me a framework from which to criticize it.
I also think the worldwide Flood of Noah is recognizable to the naked eye now, but it did take Genesis to get me to open my eyes and see it. It's so obvious now, all over the entire earth.
One more thing.
Evolution is NOT supported by scientific evidence because evolution is NOT testable the way true science is. Evolution is a theory about what happened in the past. What happened in the past cannot be replicated. Scientific testability depends on replicability. All evolution has is imaginative hypotheses, oh hundreds of them by now, and aggressive public relations, that's ALL. It is NOT SCIENCE IN THE TRUE SENSE. Physics and chemistry are sciences; their propositions can be scientificially tested. Biology and geology are also sciences that produce genuine knowledge, but not where they theorize about the past. Then they are in the area of pure speculation and interpretation and most of it is sheer silliness when you open your eyes.
--Faith
Testing Evolution
A simple test for evolution is to hypothesise what we would find when examining a new fossil site. The scientist cold make a prediction about what would be found with regard to the positioning of the fossils in relation to each other and their biological complexity. Test the hypothesis by examination of the site and make an objecting conclusion on the evidence.
That wouldn't prove anything
Well, but we all agree that the fossils are sorted in a surprisingly orderly way and creationists expect to find them in the same positions an evolutionist would, so it doesn't prove anything one way or the other if they are found in those positions.
Other factors are far more important for interpreting the observed facts. We (or some of us) think the layering in which the fossils are buried shows that the whole stack of layers had to be deposited in one water event and can't possibly be explained by ANY kind of long-term accumulation whether in stages or periodic catastrophes or gradual building up. It makes no sense that there should be this sorting of DIFFERENT sediments with DIFFERENT fossil content so neatly arranged in them in a horizontal parallel buildup. And how is it they ARE as neatly collected together as they are, this species and that species together with no strays into other zones? Actually, such an arrangement defies all our neat little schemes, certainly the scheme of evolution, but the best explanation nevertheless has to be water with its tides and currents and layerings (yes, layerings, read up a bit on oceanography) -- a LOT of water at ONE time.
Faith
Fossils and layering
True, both creationists and evolutionists can make predictions about fossils, based on our existing knowledge of other fossils. That in itself doesn't really provide the insight we need.
We're all interested in the question of what provides real explanatory power. What explains why we see what we see?
Personally, I am willing to believe in a global flood (miraculously caused, not naturalistic, I might add), but not the idea that it is responsible for the fossil record. The characteristics of the fossil record don't seem to correlate well with the idea of a single flood laying it all down.
The fossil record really does seem to show a series of lifeforms one after the other chronologically. Evolutionists conclude that each evolved from what preceded it but the fossil record doesn't seem to demonstrate that convincingly--the expected transitions between major groups (e.g. reptiles to birds) are simply not there.
As a Christian I'm keen to see how the Bible explains what really happened. Going just by the fossils, the "day-age" idea seems to fit best. But it's by no means straight-forward. Nothing seems straight-forward.
How do you make sense of the
How do you make sense of the completely different kinds of rock that make up the layers? Why should a time period be marked by a kind of rock that's different from the rocks above and below? And how could they be so parallel and horizontal (expect where they've been subjected to stresses of course). The ordering of the fossils is a puzzling peculiarity, for sure, but the layers are even more puzzling it seems to me on any old-earth scheme. Where did all that sediment come from for one thing? Why isn't it more mixed, why are the layers so discreet, a limestone here, another kind of limestone there, a sandstone, a shale and so on. Water separates sediments like that, in one action. Nothing else does that I know of. A worldwide Flood would first of all pulverize everything and then redistribute it.
But I think there is also a problem with the fossils too. Yes the ordering is very peculiar, but really too peculiar. Why isn't there more mixing? Why isn't there just as much of the same kinds of life found in the lower layers mixed in the upper layers since they didn't simply disappear? Shouldn't fish be in every layer above the first one where they appear, in roughly equal numbers, if we're talking about time periods? Shouldn't every type of life continue to appear in similar numbers after its first appearance in the strata, or maybe greater numbers? But they don't, do they? Ferns didn't die out, they're still all over the earth, but they don't appear in all the layers do they? Why not? Shouldn't they if we're talking about time periods? Etc.
Faith
Layers and sediment
G'day. I'd make sense of the different layers by saying that different conditions at different periods of history were responsible for the different layers. Unfortunately my knowledge is limited, so I can't say much more, but that general interpretation doesn't seem unreasonable.
Quantity of sediment seems much more of a problem for YEC flood geology than old-earth geology.
As for fossils, I think you and me both could benefit from learning more about the observable facts. I wish I knew more. Unfortunately there's only so much we can fit into one lifetime—at least we can try to spend less time watching television!
Read more carefully please
Just about your entire previous post was ridicule, not a single substantive comment. Perhaps you need to reread it.
No, artificial and natural selection are not "different processes and outcomes." Evolutionists fool themselves by naming things the way they do. All that is different is the nature of the agent that brings about the selection. Anything that splits off a smaller population from a larger in such a way that prevents them from recombining is a form of selection. Some such events are drastic, such as founder effect and bottleneck -- very similar effect to intensive domestic breeding -- and classical natural selection itself can also be that drastic, in that only a small population will survive while the rest die as a result of environmental threat. There are less drastic selection processes such as migration of a large portion of a population, leaving a large portion, and genetic drift, for instance, which merely means the process takes a lot longer. But the end result is the same -- the development of a new phenotype along with reduced genetic variability.
As I said, think about it.
As for my having been an atheist giving me some credibility, it would seem to follow from your own belief that faith is a sign of incompetence. You don't seem to keep track of your own points very well.
Faith
I guess I'm just fooling
I guess I'm just fooling myself by trusting my common sense and believing all this sciency stuff and evidence. You're probably right. All those bad scientists are colluding to perpetrate a gigantic worldwide fraud with the aim of discrediting the biblical account of creation. I clearly do not understand the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution. Maybe I should follow you by superficially grasping some of the basic concepts and then go off on a tangent by making non sequitur conclusions.
Seriously, you need some basic philosophy, history and science education. I will not waste my time doing what your education system has clearly failed to do. I have looked at your website and your wackaloon agenda is apparent. A world-wide flood...are you serious? I’m tired of your accusations that I can’t understand nor carefully read your posts. I need not your condescending advice for me to ‘think about it’. Your last sentence highlights your inept reasoning skills....
“As for my having been an atheist giving me some credibility, it would seem to follow from your own belief that faith is a sign of incompetence.
The fact that you may at one time have held less irrational views but have now chosen to take up patently absurd wackaloon religious nonsensical beliefs hardly enhances your credibility. My hope is that you have a happy life (with or without your delusions) but do no harm to others.
All the best
Allan
Yes you are fooling yourself
... and the surest sign is that you say NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE WHATEVER. Have you noticed that? You've claimed scientific evidence for your beliefs (and they're just beliefs, I assure you) but given not one piece of evidence. And again your entire MO is ridicule. My my, talk about irrational.
Perhaps you are very young? Like maybe twelve?
I learned long ago that it is
I learned long ago that it is useless to talk evidence and proof with a young earth creationist. Debates end with the YEC admitting they will always have faith that the bible is true and no evidence will pursuade them otherwise. Review of your website shows that you ignore any real evidence put to you or that you interpret the evidence to mean exactly the opposite of what a rational person would (refer to your flood blog). I am satisfied that my beliefs are well grounded in fact. I have no interest persuading you. I am interested in intelligent debate but I know that isn't an option with you.
Oh, by the way, another non sequitur (you are very good at them). It is not irrational to ridicule, impolite maybe, but ridicule might be the most rational course when using reason is thought to be pointless.
Reason and ridicule
Hello people,
I've seen the recent flurry of comments with interest, and it's been too quick for me to add much comment so far. But please do avoid the use of personal ridicule in comments here, tempting as it may be! We're all human beings and one family, whichever we might believe.
Craig
No BIG Miracles allowed?
No offense, but you do admit that miracles are exceptions to the rule, yet you cannot allow for the BIG miracle of a literal Creation week? Why is it that when you're faced with a choice between the current consensus of 21st science [with its inordinate number of atheists and agnostics in comparison to the public, all the bias that implies] and the revealed Word of an inerrent God who was there, you decide it's the Bible that must be modified? You don't hold with non-overlapping magisteria. Good. But by conceding the plain meaning of Genesis and constantly modifying it to suit the latest claims of 21st century science, you're engaging the stead retreat from the authority of the Word and laying omniscience at the feet of science, which is practical NOMA. This is exactly what Gould wanted to achieve with NOMA, if you've read Rocks of Ages - not to give both magisteria equal authority in separate areas, but to force religion to retreat from what science lays claim to while throwing us a lovely parting gift.
Yet Jesus warned Nicodemus that if we could not believe when He spoke of earthly things, how could we trust Him when He spoke of spiritual things?
And please don't give me the Young Earth Creationism has its problems bit, for if you've read Sarfati's Refuting Compromise you'll note Old Earth Creationism also has its problems. Of tghe two, Young Earth Creationism has the benefit of not undermining either the perspecuity or the veracity [and ultimately, in either case, the authority] of God's revealed Word. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It seems more reasonable to stand upon God's Word and trust that the answers will come than to stop trusting that he can be plainly understood when men challenge it - so long as they do so in the name of 21st century science.
-Rev Tony Breeden
aka Sirius Knott
http://DefendingGenesis.org & http://CreationLetter.com
Young earth creationism and the plain meaning of the Bible
Please see a blog post in response to these thoughts, "Young earth creationism and the plain meaning of the Bible", which hopefully captures my thoughts on this. Actually I think it's similar in many ways to a comment I left on your own blog many months back.
Add new comment